Over The Edge!

I wrote this as a comment after one of the posts below, but then decided to argue with Jim out in the open. [g]

I simply do not understand this weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth that I see on the conservative blogs today. Nobody, and I do mean nobody, has given a satisfactory reason to dislike Harriet Miers. One would think, though, that Bush had nominated one of the Leftists from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. This is truly a sight to behold. Why, Bill Kristol is downright depressed. Why? Apparently because he, and most other conservative bloggers I've read, seem to think they have the inside scoop on why Bush did what he did...i.e., selected a "crony." No thought seems to be given to the possibility that she might actually make a good Supreme Court justice. Lots of armchair quarterbacks I've read think they know more than the President, who actually *knows* these people. I'm sure he has his reasons for choosing as he did. I have no reason to dislike or distrust Harriet Miers, and I DO have reason to trust Bush's judicial picks, as he has done a wonderful job of that so far. Too bad my conservative brethren have lost their optimism.

JAS responds: The reason why we see the glass entirely empty, Jen, is because there were so many qualified, avowed constitutionalist judges to choose from. There simply was no reason to play Russian roulette with this pick unless Bush was afraid of fighting for the type of SCOTUS judge that he promised three election cycles running to appoint.

And I'm not the only one who thinks so:

It's hard to avoid the suspicion that Bush's nomination of Miers reflects some kind of deal with the Senate Democrats. Such as, the Dems gave Bush a list of candidates they would deem "acceptable" (pending Judiciary Committee hearings, of course), and Bush chose the best candidate he could off that list.

Is that what happened? I don't know, but the theory seems to fit the facts. Why would Bush accede to the Democrats rather than fight for another Roberts-type conservative? The only reason I can think of is that liberal Republicans in the Senate, starting with Arlen Specter, told him they wouldn't back him up if he replaced Sandra O'Connor with a strong conservative.

Check out the end of my last post. I raised Hinderaker's suspicions pre-emptively, but in a "this might happen but probably won't" sense. Now they have happened, and as he says, it's the only explanation that fits the facts.

It is exactly what I was afraid of: Republicans are running scared after Hurricane Katrina, and whenever they panic they bolt left and abandon the base.

We've been abandoned, Jen. Again. Left high and dry. Three election cycle victories in a row, fueled by reining in the Imperial Judiciary as the leading domestic issue, a moment of truth twenty years in the making, and all we have to show for it is...Harriet Miers. And after the John Roberts nomination proved that constitutionalists can get confirmed.

You tell me what the point is of going balls-to-the-wall to build Republican majorities and elect a Republican president if the best these people can do is stalemate. Frankly, the answer is lost on me.

UPDATE: Just had another thought. A Bushie might try to spin the above-cited suspicions as Bush doing the best he can given unfavorable circumstances. Well, pardon me, but isn't he still the President of the United States? And doesn't his party still have a double-digit majority in the U.S. Senate? Kow-towing to Harry Reid would be bad enough, but if Dubya can't even crack the whip on Arlen Specter - who owes his continued senate seat and Judiciary Committee chairmanship to Bush - then, honest to God, what good is he?

Who's he trying to please, Jen? Sure as hell can't be the people who elected him, and whose reinvigorated support he most sorely and desperately needs.

JONAH GOLDBERG adds:

But, at first blush, what bothers me more is the political calculation here. Bush could very much use a brisk confirmation battle right now. His base is forgetting why he should be supported. Confirmation battles over big ideas are clarifying in ways that are good for the public and good for a president whose principles are getting blurry. The Miers pick comes along at precisely the wrong moment. Bush is saying "trust me" at exactly the time when conservatives want to be reassured they can trust him. The last thing he needs right now is to dip into his house credit one more time.

WASHINGTON PROWLER adds:

All due respect to Hugh Hewitt, Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society and others, but the "Trust President Bush" line is getting old pretty fast. In discussions with folks on the Hill this morning, when asked about the "trust Bush" line for nominations such as Harriet Miers, the reply was almost always something along the lines of : "Trust which President Bush? The one who nominated Roberts or the one who signed the Transportation bill?

While the Bush White House was scrambling this morning to shore up support - Federalist Society has endorsed, as has Jay Sekulow - there was a growing sense of frustration among conservatives.

"We were lied to," says one Senate aide whose boss serves on the Judiciary Committee. "White House staff sat in my boss's office and told him that 'He'd be more than happy with the nominee.' That is not the case."

MORE PROWLER:

Just spoke with a staffer for a conservative member of the Judiciary Committee whose boss is extremely unhappy about the nomination of Harriet Miers.

"We heard her name. We made it clear that she was unacceptable as a nominee on the basis of qualifications and her views, which we simply don't know anything about," says the staffer. "We worked with her on policy issues, though, before she was elevated to White House counsel and let's just say we were underwhelmed."

There is now talk of among some conservatives [read this closely, Jen] about a filibuster of the Miers nomination....

Unfortunately, [read this even closer] given the level of support Miers appears to be generating among Democrats, such a move appears impossible, though admirable.

According to several White House sources, few inside the building took the possibility of a Miers nomination seriously. Now that it's a reality, they are stunned. "We passed up Gonzales for this?" was one conservative staffer's reaction. "I don't know much about Gonzales, but I think I know enough that he's more of a conservative than Harriet is....I can't tell you how unhappy some of us insiders here are right now. We go from the high of John Roberts to this."

This is what we've already come to, Jen: Democrats breaking a Republican filibuster of a Bush SCOTUS nominee.

And I haven't touched a drop of Kool-Aid all day.

If I drank another sort of beverage, though, I'd be loading up right about now.